Comments on "simoens, s. health economic assessment: A methodological primer. int. j. environ. res. public health 2009, 6, 2950-2966"-New Zealand in fact has no cost-effectiveness threshold

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1831-1834

  Metcalfe, Scott ^a   Grocott, Rachel ^a  

^a Pharmaceutical Management Agency   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Budget impact analysis; Cost savings; Cost benefit analysis; Cost effectiveness threshold; Decision making; Health economic evaluation and technology assessment; Opportunity cost; Pharmaceutical costs; Prioritisation; Quality adjusted life years

Indexed keywords

BUDGET; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; FUNDING; HEALTH ECONOMICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NEW ZEALAND; NOTE; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; DRUG COST; HEALTH CARE COST;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COSTS; HEALTH CARE COSTS; NEW ZEALAND; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 77954551698     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph7041831     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Simoens, S. Health economic assessment: a methodological primer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2950-2966.
2. Cleemput, I.; Neyt, M.; Thiry, N.; De Laet, C; Leys, M. Thresholds for Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care; KCE reports 100A. Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), Brussels, Belgium, 2008. http://www.kce.fgov.be/index_en.aspx?SGREF=10504&CREF=12539. [Authors note. The summary of this report (page vi) says, inter alia, that New Zealand had found an ICER threshold of NZ$20,000. This statement is incorrect on a number of grounds.]
3. Metcalfe, S.; Dougherty, S.; Brougham, M.; Moodie, P. PHARMAC measures savings elsewhere to the health sector. N Z Med. J. 2003, 116, 362.
4. Grocott, R. Applying Programme Budgeting Marginal Analysis in the health sector: 12 years of experience. Exp. Rev. Pharmacoecon. 2009, 9, 181-187.
5. Prescription for Pharmacoeconomic Analysis: methods for cost-utility analysis, Version 2. PHARMAC: Wellington, New Zealand, 2007. Available online: http://www.pharmac.govt.nz/2007/06/19/PFPAFinal.pdf (accessed March 2010).
6. Birch, S.; Gafni, A. The 'NICE'approach to technology assessment: an economics perspective. Health Care Manag. Sci. 2004, 7, 35-41.
7. Grocott, R.; Metcalfe, S. Going against the flow: the impact of PHARMAC not funding COX-2 inhibitors for chronic arthritis. N Z Med. J. 2005, 118, 1690.
8. McCabe, C; Claxton, K; Culyer, A.J. The NICE cost-effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics 2008, 26, 733-744.